Usage Conversations: The Problem with “In Perpetuity”

There is a common discussion found in voiceover circles...the “in perpetuity” discussion. Non-Broadcast work doesn't have the same usage concerns as broadcast as there is generally little need for exclusivity and few conflicts. Broadcast however, requires a limited usage agreement (timeline, end date, etc.) to prevent a voice actor from facing future conflict; or the loss of work due to a preexisting contract. Genres like audiobooks, videogames, and animation are generally in perpetuity. Commercials, promos, social, and radio ads are not.

If a major brand hires a talent for a broadcast project they won't want that same actor voicing a spot for their competitor during the time their spot airs. The voice is part of the brand in that moment. This also applies to online ads, even more so as their reach goes farther (worldwide), and they can bring plenty of financial gain for a client.

It makes sense.

It's still a constant conversation in the voice over world and one we have to keep having.

There are MANY projects out there that are looking for all media in perpetuity for broadcast work. Truthfully voice actors know this could lose them money in the future if a client in the same market offers them work. If it is in perpetuity the buyout should be high enough to cover all possible lossses for the years the spot airs as most companies will NOT hire an actor voicing their competitors’ ads.

Clients can always negotiate a shorter usage for multiple spots or a longer usage with fewer spots to balance the needs of their budget. Have more questions? Feel free to reach out and I’m always happy to continue the conversation.